« | »

Liberal Bashed For Complaining About O-Care

From the New York Times:

Daring to Complain About Obamacare

By LORI GOTTLIEB | November 10, 2013

LOS ANGELES — The Anthem Blue Cross representative who answered my call told me that there was a silver lining in the cancellation of my individual P.P.O. policy and the $5,400 annual increase that I would have to pay for the Affordable Care Act-compliant option: now if I have Stage 4 cancer or need a sex-change operation, I’d be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions. Never mind that the new provider network would eliminate coverage for my and my son’s long-term doctors and hospitals.

Mind you, this is a liberal woman (a contributing editor for The Atlantic and a psychotherapist) who is complaining about coverage for sex-change operations.

The Anthem rep cheerily explained that despite the company’s — I paraphrase — draconian rates and limited network, my benefits, which also include maternity coverage (handy for a 46-year-old), would “be actually much richer.”

And she is complaining about mandated maternity coverage, too! What a reactionary.

I, of course, would be actually much poorer. And it was this aspect of the bum deal that, to my surprise, turned out to be a very unpopular thing to gripe about.

“Obamacare or Kafkacare?” I posted on Facebook as soon as I hung up with Anthem. I vented about the call and wrote that the president should be protecting the middle class, not making our lives substantially harder. For extra sympathy, I may have thrown in the fact that I’m a single mom. (O.K., I did.)

Then I sat back and waited for the love to pour in. Or at least the “like.” Lots of likes. After all, I have 1,037 Facebook friends. Surely, they’d commiserate. Except that they didn’t.

Instead, aside from my friend David, who attempted to cheer me up with, “My dad, who never turns down a bargain, would take the sex change just because it’s free,” my respondents implied — in posts that, to my annoyance, kept getting more “likes” — that it was beyond uncool to be whining about myself when the less fortunate would finally have insurance.

“The nation has been better off,” wrote one friend. “Over 33 million people who did not have insurance are now going to get it.” That’s all fine and good for “the nation,” but what about my $5,400 rate hike (after-tax dollars, I wanted to add, but dared not in this group of previously closeted Mother Teresas)? Another friend wrote, “Yes, I’m paying an extra 200 a month, but I’m okay with doing that so that others who need it can have health care.”

I was shocked. Who knew my friends were such humanitarians? Has Obamacare made it un-P.C. to be concerned by a serious burden on my family’s well-being?

The heated reactions even moved offline. Frustrated, I observed to one friend who was covered through her work that when an issue didn’t affect people directly, they became “theoretically generous.” Ask them to donate several thousand dollars so that the less fortunate can have medical insurance — which is exactly what President Obama is asking me to do — and I’ll bet they’d change their tune about “ending inequality” and “creating fairness” and “doing what’s good for the country.”

Refreshingly, the two people who showed real empathy were my insurance broker and my friend Nicole, who sent daily links to news stories about people who were also stripped of their coverage and mandated to buy expensive exchange or private policies without access to their current doctors, yet just missed the cutoff for subsidies.

One of her only two supporters was an evil insurance broker!

There was one story about people suing Anthem for not being grandfathered in after changing their policies post-2010. In fact, it was in 2011 that I altered mine, dumping maternity benefits so that I didn’t have to pay for everyone else’s pregnancies. Little did I know I’d end up losing my insurance and paying for everyone else’s pregnancies.

There was even an article about a cancer patient who had lost access to her doctors. To her credit, Nicole refrained from saying, “But, Lori, this woman has cancer and you are so much more fortunate!”

Like Bridget Jones’s “smug marrieds,” the “smug insureds” — friends who were covered through their own or spouses’ employers or who were grandfathered into their plans — asked why I didn’t “just” switch all of our long-term doctors, suck it up and pay an extra $200 a month for a restrictive network on the exchange, or marry the guy I’m dating. How romantic: “I didn’t marry you just to save money, honey. I married you for your provider network.”

Along with the smug insureds, President Obama doesn’t care much about the relatively small percentage of us with canceled coverage and no viable replacement. He keeps apologizing while maintaining that it’s for the good of the country, a vast improvement “over all.”

And the “over all” might agree. But the self-employed middle class is being sacrificed at the altar of politically correct rhetoric, with nobody helping to ensure our health, fiscal or otherwise, because it’s trendy to cheer for the underdog. Embracing the noble cause is all very well — as long as yours isn’t the “fortunate” family that loses its access to comprehensive, affordable health care while the rest of the nation gets it.

The truly noble act here is being performed by my friend Nicole, who keeps posting Obamacare fiasco stories on my Facebook page, despite being conspicuously ignored, except for my single “like.” It’s the lone “like” that falls in the forest, the click nobody wants to hear.

Lori Gottlieb is a contributing editor for The Atlantic and a psychotherapist.

How many other liberals are being woken up by Obama-Care? It might turn out to be the best thing to ever happen to conservatives since Ronald Reagan.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Tuesday, November 12th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Liberal Bashed For Complaining About O-Care”

  1. Chrispbass

    Yes! Hilarious! Maybe this person will think about the complete lack of ‘likes’ on her fbook page and the logic she is using to ‘dislike’ her present situation. Maybe she will put the 2 together and realize her thinking has been *****d all these years. Brainwashed.
    All these commies are FOR the idea until it smashes them upside the head and then HOLD ON A MINUTE. THIS DOESN’T SEEM FAIR. The theory is fine as long as it doesn’t affect them. Free Everything for everyone! Just don’t touch mine!

  2. mr_bill

    “The nation has been better off,” wrote one friend. “Over 33 million people who did not have insurance are now going to get it.”

    Not true. There is absolutely nothing in the ACA which provides insurance to anybody. The ACA does not provide insurance! It merely forces people to buy it from somebody who sells it, regardless of their ability to afford it. If 33 million people didn’t have it before because they couldn’t afford it, 33 million people still can’t afford it. Actually, that number is higher since obamacare has raised the cost of insurance so that 46 year olds can have maternity coverage and sex change coverage and women can have prostate coverage and men can get mammagrams, etc. The increases in premiums, to provide coverages people neither want nor need, are in most cases larger than any subsidies that are available to those who couldn’t afford insurance in the first place.

    Those “33 million” people are going to “get it” alright, they’re going to get it in the kazoo, when they realize they have to start paying fines (er taxes…er penalties…er fines…er whatever) for not being able to afford a product they didn’t want or couldn’t afford previously. Don’t forget that 16,000 new IRS agents will be working around the clock to add interest and penalties to those fines…er taxes. Hello wage garnishments, levies, and liens. Goodbye IRS refund checks. I wonder what the retail groups are going to say when fewer people have refund checks because of the ACA “penalty.”

    • yadayada

      yes, i noticed a long time ago that nowhere. In the act does it actually provide anyone with health insurance. it merely provides them with the “opportunity to purchase” health care. something they had before but chose to not do. now they have the same “opportunity” but will be fined if they make the same choice.

      or more accurately; YOU will now be fined, regardless of their choice.

  3. “Back in line! Back in line!” (whack whack whack)

  4. Petronius

    There are at least eight specific features of ObamaCare that result in cancellation of the old “bad apple” plans and higher premiums for replacement plans.

    I mentioned one feature the other day –– how tobacco smoking is in effect a pre-existing condition and the cost is therefore spread over the entire pool:

    http://sweetness-light.com/arc.....ent-221483

    Here are seven other features (there may be others that I haven’t thought of):

    1. Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions. Insurance companies are required to extend coverage under the same terms to all-comers regardless of pre-existing conditions. As a result, the expense for this added insurance risk must be spread to everybody through higher premiums across the board. This is a deliberate redistribution of wealth that lies at the heart of ObamaCare.

    2. Limits Imposed on Actuarial Costs. Another cost drivers is the new ObamaCare limitation on the way insurance companies can handle actuarial costs. Currently companies may rate for a bunch of things, including gender, which means young women of childbearing age pay more than young men because they have more claims, and sick people pay more than healthy people for the same reason. ObamaCare says the companies can’t do that anymore. They can rate for only three things: age, location, and family composition. Moreover, the age variation, currently rated at 5:1, must be limited to 3:1, which will throw more costs onto young people. So now premiums must go up to compensate for that spread. Healthy young men are going to have to pay a lot more. Middle-aged people (below the Medicare threshold) will also pay a lot more. So somebody currently paying $300 a month is going to have to pay $900 a month to cover other people’s claims. That is a hidden tax and redistribution of wealth central to the Act.

    3. Comprehensive Coverage. ObamaCare requires that all policies must include ten “essential” categories of mandatory coverage (hospitalization, emergency, outpatient, primary care, maternity and pre-natal and post-natal, medication, mental health, etc.). The law also limits deductibles and out-of-pocket costs ($6350 annual limit on out-of-pocket). And every plan must have a 60 percent actuarial value at a minimum (i.e., pay at least 60 percent of customers’ bills). Many existing policies do not offer such comprehensive coverage, and so they must either add the benefits or terminate the plan––that is why these “bad apple” plans are being cancelled. Naturally the cost of the new comprehensive policies is always going to be higher.

    4. The Sandra Fluke Specials. These are the extras that drive the insurers’ costs higher (hidden tax increases). The mandatory add-ons require the companies to provide coverage in all policies for contraception (includes some abortifacients), sterilization, women’s wellness programs, preconception counseling, pre-natal and post-natal care, well child care, lactation support, domestic violence screening and counseling, HIV screening and counseling, STD counseling, well-woman visits, mammograms, pap smears, pediatric dentistry and vision, childhood obesity counseling, lead and TB screening, developmental and autism screening, etc.––all to be provided without co-pays or deductibles. Abortions are also provided under multi-State plans in 27 States and DC (in the other 23 States abortions are limited to cases under the Hyde Amendment conditions). Since ObamaCare prohibits the companies from allocating risks according to gender, the companies must pass-through the costs for these “freebies” by imposing higher premiums in their new plans to everyone. It is a major redistribution of wealth from everybody to young females of childbearing age.

    5. The Young Invincibles. The individual mandate was designed to compel participation of the young invincibles (particularly males) in order to help spread the insurance companies’ risks and costs for covering the people with pre-existing conditions. But the $95 penalty (tax) isn’t sufficient to convince them to sign up. If only sick and old people sign up, the program is skewed to high-risk cases and will implode. Without the participation of the invincibles, premiums are forced even higher. But since the invincibles can’t be excluded for pre-existing conditions, they can absorb the $95 penalty, and wait until they’re in the back of the ambulance to sign up. (Over time the penalty for noncompliance goes up from $95 to $395 per year or 2.5 percent of your AGI –– big whoop.) And if you’re under 26, you’re probably already covered by your parents’ policy. So how do the insurance companies obtain their participation? If they don’t, premiums must then rise further for everybody else.

    6. Insurer Fees. One source for funding the exchange subsidies is the ObamaCare insurer fees (a tax), and beginning this year the industry is responsible for $8 billion. By 2017, that amount goes up to $18 billion. Of course the insurer’s fees are a cost (tax) that will have to be passed along to customers by means of higher premiums. That pass-through will inevitably drive up the cost of insurance premiums for everyone across the board. Currently it adds 3.7 percent to the cost of each policy. It will go higher as the insurer fees ratchet up in the future.

    7. Medical Device Tax. ObamaCare imposes a wide range of new taxes. One of the new taxes is a 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers of durable medical devices, equipment, and supplies. Manufacturers will attempt to pass that tax through to hospitals, physicians, and patients, driving up the cost of healthcare. This will, in turn, make insurance more expensive.

    These cost drivers are not creatures of the insurance industry. They are elements of the ObamaCare statute and regulations. They are fundamental to the Liberals’ goal of redistribution of wealth and control of health care. And that’s why the regime is going to resist any attempts to eliminate them.

  5. canary

    Yes, I’ve seen a turn around of liberal people saying he’s not that bad, and he’s done an okay job are now strongly dislike our leader.

    Suddenly, ignorance is not bliss and they are paying attention to this fiasco.

    I think we all at some point said Obama care was a step towards the federal government running the medical care.

    Now that we know the federal government will pay the exchanges and health insurers companies any money they may need in case they run out of money, it will be called the Health Insurance Company Bail Out. Just like they bailed out GM and other private businesses, they will bail out these unknown companies with strings attached.

    And, when someone told me insurance has to pay for procedures your doctor orders I pointed out that technically they don’t. Health insurance companies can stall surgeries, treatments, tests, anything they want.

    And there will be more of this. And health insurance companies will tell you they are following government guidelines.

    After all, Obama’s grandma’s hip surgery was a waste of money because she didn’t live that long afterwards.

    And don’t think these people suffering in pain will get lot’s of good ole pain medicine. They will be in pain, so that they lose the will to live and go for the 3 day death deal.

    Those death panels are still there.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »